15 votes

9/11 Science Club! What Are Specific Heat and Heat-Energy Content?

Note this post deleted at original source below, this site has been displaying this pattern with 9/11 threads.


They pulled it off by dumbing us down. Education and critical thinking are vital to democracy. Science is fun!

Specific heat can be defined as the amount of heat energy required to raise the temperature of one gram of a substance, such as wood or steel, by one degree C.

Heat content is the heat energy which can be generated by a given mass a substance.

A calorie is the amount of heat energy required to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree C.

Converting the energy unit calories to British Thermal Units (BTUs), and the mass unit of grams to pounds, some specific heats are:

aluminum: .22 BTU/lb.
copper: .09 BTU/lb.
iron: .11 BTU/lb.

For aluminum this means it requires .22 BTUs to raise the temperature of a pound of aluminum by one degree.

Some heat content values are:

wood: 7870 BTU/lb.
paper: 6500 BTU/lb.
gasoline: 19000 BTU/lb.

For wood this means a pound of wood can generate 7870 BTUs. A pound of gasoline can generate 19000 BTUs. Therefore gasoline contains more heat energy per pound than wood.


On 9/11 it is argued that the fires did or did not reach sufficient temperatures to sufficiently weaken the steel to induce global collapse. But temperature is only one factor. The total heat content of the available fuel would have to be sufficient to raise the 95,000 tons of steel in the frame to a sufficient temperature, since steel is an excellent heat conductor and it would dissipate quickly to all parts of the steel frame. Steel is considered an ideal "heat sink."

In addition, a mechanically forced oxygen supply is required to burn fuel efficiently enough for it to reach its maximum burning temperature and deliver its maximum heat content. In order to make steel soft enough to be malleable, air must be pumped forcefully through the fuel with an instrument such as a bellows. A blast furnace gets its name from the air "blasted" forcefully with an air compressor through fuel such as coal.

In steel forming and forging, the ratio of coal or coke (refined coal) to steel required to make steel soft or to melt is anywhere from 1-to-3, to 1-to-2. This is high heat content fuel burning in an enclosed and insulated chamber at its maximum efficiency.

It is estimated that there were an average of 4 pounds per sq. foot of combustibles in the office space of the Twin Towers. There was 40,000 sq. feet of office space per floor. Therefore, the total amount of combustibles would be:

4 x 40,000 x 110 floors = 17.6 million pounds of combustibles

17.6 million lbs = 8,800 tons.

A full load of jet fuel for a 767 is about 80 tons, insignificant compared to the total amount of office combustibles.

Jet fuel is only kerosene, and has roughly the same heat content as burning plastics and office synthetics, and burns at about the same temperature in open air. Most of the kerosene blew out in the fireballs.

Therefore the available combustible fuel in one tower was 8,800 + 80 = 8,880 tons

The total amount of structural steel in the towers was 95,000 tons, 35,000 tons of it in the core bundles.

Only a small number of the floors were on fire, and those were already going out by the time global destruction ensued. However, even making the most generous of assumptions, that the planes were fully loaded with kerosene, that there was no loss to the fireballs, that every bit of combustible fuel on every floor was burning white hot at maximum efficiency (as under a forced air supply) and burning as hot as coal in a ceramics-insulated blast furnace or foundry, the ratio of fuel to steel is still only 1-to-10, not 1-to-3 or 1-to-2, as the most efficient of blast furnaces or foundries requires.

Granting the still generous assumption that a full 20 floors were on fire at white hot, maximum efficiency as hot as coal would make the ratio of fuel-to-steel 1-to-50.

We know these generous assumptions are not true. The fires were small, isolated, and already going out as evidenced by black smoke (sign of a cool, oxygen-starved fire,) firefighter radio transmissions, and people standing alive near the fires in open windows. Carbon-based life could not exist near a fire hot enough to make steel soft, but would be shriveled to carbon and water.

The plane hits themselves were insignificant. A 767 fully loaded weighs about 200 tons, whereas the mass of each tower which absorbed and dissipated the kinetic energy was about 500,000 tons. This is a weight ratio of 1-to-2500. Steel is much denser than aluminum and the planes were shredded on impact, as photographic evidence confirms.

Any damaged support columns would have resulted in load redistribution to remaining columns, of which there were 47 running continuously up the entire 110 floors.

This is why steel framed buildings do not, and have never, collapsed from fires. Steel is too strong, and open air fires do not burn hot enough, NOR IS THERE ENOUGH FUEL PRESENT WHICH CONTAINS SUFFICIENT HEAT ENERGY. Focusing on temperatures alone misses the more important concept of heat transfer. A blowtorch can reach 5,000F at the flame tip, hot enough to melt steel, but you cannot take a skyscraper down in 14 seconds with a blowtorch.

Please discuss, challenge scientific values, calculations, or assumptions. There is no such thing as a dumb question.

IMAGE: Shredded aircraft fuselage

IMAGE: Core backbone of tower under construction

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Let's get even more remedial and talk

about the acceleration due to gravity, g, which is 9.8 m/s^2.

The towers fell at ~ 10 m/s^2.

Explanations please?

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

You all are missing an important item

The airplane was made of aluminum.

The aluminum shell and structure of the airplane vaporized as it crashed into the building.

This formed aluminum oxide dust in the building. ( AlO^3)

Mix aluminum oxide, steel, and a heat source together to get a reaction going and you get THERMITE.


Well ... that's a neat trick. I never knew it was that easy!

vaporized - LOL

that's a good one

Wow thnk of how happy those Liverpool Labs scientists will be

who have been tearing their hair out over how to refine aluminum and iron down to nanometer, attomic-level particles in order to produce military grade nanothermite. All they had to do was fire some aluminum into an anvil and viola! Instant thermite reaction! Encase an aluminum block with steel and explode it together and forget all those processes it has taken the best scientific minds to design.

What you are saying is that American are dumb enough to believe that if you drop a carton of eggs, a block of cheese, and a stick of butter down an elevator shaft, at the bottom you will find an egg souffle. You will not. You will find a block of cheese, a stick of butter, and a carton of broken eggs. That's all.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

sharkhearted's picture

HAHAHA. Bravo on that one.

And BRAVO on this forum.

In one short summary (and abstract)...you just wiped NIST's clock clean.

Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

it has been said that the smoke color

indicated an oxygen starved fire. if true, that is further evidence the fire was not hot enough to do anything to the steel frame.

No. Judy Woods is disinfo

... and a red herring. She claims not enough debris was found inside the footprint for a gravitational collapse. But it WAS NOT a gravitational collapse, the steel was blown out by cutter and kicker charges, standard "banana peel" demolition, and is found all across the WTC complex for a quarter mile. No exotic technology required, talking about space beams only makes us look like tin foil loons.


Release the Sandy Hook video.

The Next Logical Step, Testing the Theory

I'm not a metallurgist, structural engineer or architect but I am a curious fellow. Given my inherent distrust of the federal government, I also believe the official report of what happened on September 11, 2001 is a coverup.

There are many, many professionals as well as 9/11 theorists throughout the Internet that have offered technical explanations of how the buildings collapsed. However I have yet to see or hear of a scientifically possible experiment set up to test such theories. Is it possible to do a 'Mythbusters' (i.e., the TV show) controlled test?

There is a museum in New York City that has an exhibit of the original WTC (World Trade Center) model (see: http://skyscraper.org/EXHIBITIONS/WTC_MODEL/wtcmodel.htm ). It is built to a 1:200 scale.

Maybe 1:200 scale is too small to test a theory, given the requirement to use the same building materials and structural design required to simulate a valid experiment. Perhaps the scale should be 1:20 (about 70 feet high). I have no figures on what the cost would be to build it (if feasible) but I think it should be explored.

A scale model Boeing 767 airplane could be used to crash into the building directed on a fixed guided wire (see: http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__13845__A320_Airbu... ).

Does anyone here have any thoughts on taking the next step beyond theory discussion?

Of Course The Buildings Were Detonated

Because how on earth could this woman stand at the entrance hole created by the 747, holding onto the metal (See link below)? Very simple answer: Because it wasn't very hot in there at all, let alone anywhere near enough to melt anything significant. Anyone arguing otherwise on this thread is a fool. Please, PLEASE - try and disprove this logic. If the woman can be standing there, any theory on steel melting in an hour is absolutely impossible.

Also, I must point out that I remember seeing this woman on TV on 9/11. I literally jumped out of my chair and was screaming that they needed to get a helicopter to her immediately. I went on about it for 15 minutes or so and then the building collapsed.

Okay, I'm waiting for some "genius" to disprove this. Without a doubt, this picture of the woman disproves any chance of melting steel. The building was detonated. SCROLL DOWN to see the picture of the lady:


Patiently waiting for anyone to challenge this and still claim the steel "melted".


Excellent observation. If the temperatures were anywhere

near what the disinfos say they were to make the steel "soft," say 1200F, then no carbon-basd life could stand anywhere near it. We would be shriveled to crispy critters, to carbon and water. I have seen a raging inferno, a warehouse on fire which they could do nothing but let burn. Even a block away you could feel the waves of heat. Getting firemen anywhere near it was out of the question.

But I have seen stupid Americans say "They were JUMPING! How can you say it wasn't hot?" That's why Europeans and Japanese laugh at us; we are so dumbed-down stupid, we don't understand the difference between what is hot for an organism and hot for a steel I-beam.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

What do you think of this?

Take a look at this link:


A tanker truck carrying 13,000 gallons of diesel fuel crashed under a bridge and caught fire.

"Morosi said they need to determine if the steel beams under the west side of the overpass that takes Nine Mile over the freeway were compromised by the intense heat and flames. It's likely they may have to take down what's still standing and start anew. This overpass was built only a year ago as part of a project to rehabilitate a series of overpasses along I-75 from downtown to I-696. He confirms the intense heat melted the steel beams underneath the overpass on the northbound side and brought that part of the bridge deck down on top of the tanker."

So here we have an example of an open air fire fueled by diesel fuel causing steel beams under a bridge to melt sufficiently to cause a newly constructed bridge to collapse. Jet fuel and diesel fuel are very similar in composition. In fact, jet fuel is used quite regularly at airports to run diesel powered ramp equipment.

The aircraft which crashed into the WTC would have carried about 20,000 gallons each. More than enough to cause some steel beams to fail.

The difference is the difference between apples and oranges

Stomp on a tree branch lain across 2 cinder blocks and break it in two. Now stand it end-wise and try to stomp on it from the top and flatten it into the ground. Tensile versus compression strength. No comparison.

Moreover the quantity of kerosene (which is all jet fuel is) was a thimble-full in relation to the mass of the towers, a far smaller proportion than a tanker to a bridge. An overpass bridge is maybe 50 feet. The towers were over three football fields high. A full load of Jet-A (kerosene) for a 767 is about 20,000 gallons. These were only half full and anyone could see most of blowing out in the fireballs.

What is most telling, however, is disinformationist's incredibly strained efforts to focus the debate on these ridiculous analogies, like fire melting bridges, in order to keep going around in circles about fire and steel, when we already found explosives residues in every dust sample. That is End of Story, but the guy talking about the bridge completely ignores it.

It's like guessing if the murder victim might have tripped and hit his head when there is a smoking gun a foot away from the body.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

sharkhearted's picture

BRAVO again!

Extremely well-said.

Sorry I missed this thread a couple months ago.

Voting up!

Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Whats the difference between

Whats the difference between kerosene burning, and gasolene and diesel fuel burning? Also, the other two differences here is that there would have been more oxygen to fuel the fire(enclosed tower space versus just under a bridge) and the fuel probably didnt spray all over the place. The planes got shreaded when they flew through the towers so the fuel was not concentrated in one spot.

I am open to new material, but these kind of differences need to be taken into account.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.


As an experienced constructor there is no way that the building could have "pancaked".

1. The towers were constructed with a central steel core or cage. This is the strongest part of the building. Think of it as the "backbone".

2. If a plane had sheared the central core the floors above would have toppled in the direction of the structural failure... the "gash".

3. "Pancaking" tends to only happen with one type of commercial construction method called "lift slab". The best example of lift-slab failure is the L'Ambiance Plaza tragedy in Bridgeport, Connecticut: https://buildingfailures.com/2012/04/20/lambiance-plaza-coll...

4. The upper floors of WTC could not have generated enough downward force or acceleration for the remaining structure below it to fail in rapid succession.

I remember watching on TV saying to myself that the buildings functioned perfectly, they absorbed the impact and dispersed it as they were designed to do. The Twin Towers were very flexible & resilient. In high winds they swayed many feet off-center without incident for decades.

There is no way these structures would have pancaked without additional assistance, none, period.

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

This is a very excellent post

No structure of any kind can destroy itself by its weak top dropping by gravity on its strong bottom that carries the top. This is Hollywood physics.

That's right on - Kinetic Energy

The mass of the floors above the impact zone did not change so the structure below is bearing the same weight as it did pre-impact.

Even if the whole center had been removed by the impact the structure above would have dropped 5 or so stories. That fall would not generate enough acceleration to drive the failure of each subsequent floor below. The top section would have stopped and then toppled.

K = 1/2 mv² (K = kinetic energy, v = velocity m = mass).


"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

specific heat, is always measured against water.

specific density is the same
the specific heat of water is 9703 BTU's per LB.(latent heat of vaporization) for ice it is 144 BTU"s per LB. (latent heat of fusion)for the liquid state it is 1.
heat content includes latent heat.(enthalpy)
a calorie and a BTU are the same thing. both measure heat quantity. temperature measures heat concentration.

"jet fuel" is kerosene. I can explain superheat if you would like...


You should clarify where your sentences start and end

It's confusing to read. I read your words as saying that specific heat and latent heat of vaporization are the same thing and equal to 970 (per your later correction). They are not the same. Specific heat (1 BTU/lb for water - i.e. "the standard") is the heat added (sensible - meaning stored with an external change like temperature or state) to a pound of water to raise it 1 degree F.

Heat of vaporization (making steam) is 970 BTU/lb and heat of fusion (melting ice) is 144 BTU/lb. These are both examples of latent heat which means stored heat without any external change in temperature. Specific heat does not apply to latent heat examples like making steam or melting ice. Those are only sensible.

Not sure why this matters to a 911 thread but just to complete the exercise, it important to note that the sensible or specific heat of solid ice and vaporized steam is only half that of water and varies with the pressure and volume acting on it.

I found a link with a good explanation and graph to visualize it better. Enjoy.

In a manner related to this thread, BTU content is not the only factor, or even the largest one, for calculating the heat given off various fuels. Kerosene jet fuel (as opposed to naptha) is a higher BTU content per gallon than gasoline (135k vs. 125k) but it has a lower vaporization rate. This means it requires much more air turbulence to vaporize it. Think of how much more powerful aviation gas (BTU/g of only 120k) is than regular gasoline (because it can be compressed more). In the tower fires, this would mean the jet fuel would need an external blower to generate it's potential in heat of combustion. HTH

Still wondering why you linked a song whose lyrics started out, "Well, I'm so above you..."

you are correct.

it was not well structured and poorly written. I will try to keep that in mind next time.
the song was just one that I like and have recently discovered. no hidden meaning. just a cool song.
specific heat and total heat should not be confused. 9-11 threads are good places for people to get information they can grasp.
I discovered the DP about a year before I joined, I found that when people who know things, share and even argue a bit about it....
well,I learned a lot from them.



freedumb is not free!

heating, ventilation and air conditioning.

I actually specialize in refrigeration.
all of it has to do with heat, removal or addition. cold does not exist my friend.
and yes. I was trained in and do high rise commercial structures.
and it is 970 point 3. not 9703
I am a bit surprised no one has called me out on that typo.....

This is NOT about physics, It's about our media.

This problem is about the media. Those running the media know that people have a built in disposition toward being an optimist. By nature, we are designed to formulate an opinion of how everything in our world works (to our own comfort level) and then build upon that as we move forward in life. This leads us to being optimistic which is the sole purpose for all advancement in humanity. Without it, we would still be living in caves in one tiny region, choosing local safety over foreign adventure.

Knowing this, the media paints this collectivist world view and then builds on it every waking moment of our viewing lives. Countering that picture at any stage results in a catastrophic cascade of knowns that must fall in succession for the new data to fit. In other words, it's simply too much work to redesign everything we 'know' to fit one small detail that doesn't fit. We even have a colloquialism for this in our language that attributes an exception to every rule. Sorry, but rules don't have exceptions. That's why they're a rule. Those exceptions are little tidbits of data that we can't fit elsewhere.

We must change the atmosphere of media dissemination standards. We must take it from a top-down, push style to the bottom-up, pull style of today's internet. It must be requested and on demand. That is the only way to remove the power of the controllers of today's pravda. When we do this, those extraneous tidbits of info will rise to the top like cream on raw milk. When they do that, the spotlight will follow them and the rest of the mythical picture will gradually fade away.

However, day after day, year after year new, we spend our time following the arsonist and putting out every little fire. Instead of focusing on exposing each little error in our current media, we need to go eliminate the arsonist himself. We must produce a new 'standard' to which people begin to place their world-view trust.

It can't be that hard either. Larry and Sergi created an internet mammoth by making a single web site with a new paradigm in search algorithms. Jeff created an empire in online sales with a different site that had a significant difference. Think of the internet encyclopedia, online shopping, the auction site, the whistle blower repository, the personal video site, the social network site, the Ron Paul info site ;), the online debit card and the online underground currency... Think of each of those and just one site stands way above the others in each category. This is because they satisfied a need and they made it convenient. Those attributes then made it addictive and those sites didn't even have to promote themselves much.

Why can't we find the algorithm that satisfies all our news/info/history/debate wishes, format it to be attractive and addictive like the social networks of today and then make it available?

I guess everyone's waiting for me to become independently

wealthy so I can do it myself and report back.

I can't figure out why this topic gets no traction (much less than even the bitcoin one) regardless of how or where I bring it up.

You are doing way too much work trying to prove an inside job

It is really quite simple. Aluminum melts at 1221F, and the aluminum on the planes did in fact melt, so we know temperatures in the buildings reached at least 1200F. At this temperature Steel loses over 90% of its structural strength. Now we know that civil engineers commonly make plenty of cautions assumptions in their calculations, and then triple the numbers, but if eevrything then ended up 5X as strong as it needed to be, but the structure lost 90% of the strength it could indeed collapse. Also it is important to note that the available fuels were in fact contained to a rather small area of several floors, so much less metal need be heated than you stated. Also, your statement about the heat sinking ability of steel is simply way off. When a frying pan is on the fire the handle stays cool enough to touch, and it is less than a foot from the flames. Also keep in mind that at the height that the planes hit (roughly 1000') there would be a very strong steady wind supply to feed oxygen to the fire. The fires could definitely have collapsed the buildings.

So, some conclusions:

Planes did hit the buildings.

The fuels involved were indeed enough, and enough air was supplied to reach 1200F, proven by the molten aluminum.

Mossad (and or our government)may have known about the attacks beforehand, and even let them happen. Most of the Zionist Jews who rely on the US to protect them would have seen a silver lining in the attack. BTW Mossad agents may have been in vans with explosive residue, but almost everything has explosive residue (and cocaine residue) on or in it if you look hard enough.

There really is no reasonable question as to what happened that day, the questions all surround who was behind it, and more importantly why it occurred. All possible people involved had the means, the motive, and the opportunity to pull off the attack.

Josh Brueggen
Jack of all Trades
Precinct Commiteeman Precinct 5 Rock Island Co Illinois

Read the post. Once again you are confusing temperature

with heat transfer, which is the more important concept. It doesn't matter what the point temperatures reaches if enough hot-burning fuels are not present to raise the temperature of the entire structure sufficiently. A blow torch reaches 5,000F. Try taking down a skyscraper with it.

You claim there was sufficient fuel but provide no calculations. The fuel which was present was spec fire retardant, hardly burned as hot as coal or coke under forced oxygen. The idea that a few floors of normal office fires which were already going out initiated a global collapse is ludicrous. A firefighter on the 78th floor of the South Tower reported only "isolated pockets" which could be "knocked down with 2 lines" (hoses.) Jet fuel is only kerosene. There was nothing extraordinary about these fires.

The idea that a tall "gash" in the building can provide a convection current which duplicates a mechanically forced oxygen supply is laughable. Steel makers would save a whole lot of money just punching a hole in their blast furnaces rather than spending all that energy on pumping air at pressure.

I don't know about your frying pans, but mine have hard plastic handles. If your handles were extensions of the steel you would burn yourself.

This is science club. Anyone can make up any kind of cartoonish narrative. Please show your calculations if you expect to be taken seriously.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

spot on assessment.

I really like the part about the "gash"
OK, so we have a hole at the bottom, without a hole at the top convection will be minimal.

Physics is not simplistic but it doesn't lie.

Sorry, but physics is just not as simple as 'it is possible to weaken a piece of steel enough to lose enough strength' for this to happen. I get so tired of people trying to explain things they don't know the first thing about by over simplifying.

Steel beams have numerous 'strengths', each to be considered separately. This is the scientific discipline called Finite Element Analysis (FEA). There is tension (stretching it's length), compression (pushing it shorter), bending moments, twisting moments and sheer moments (kind of like a jog in a highway).

Each beam was placed there to stop a specific force from causing displacement. The infamous generic 'beams' that are often discussed were there to carry the vertical load on their compressive strength. This assumes that the beams were braced to resist significant buckling at the time, which they were. To add to that, beams in buildings like that have their skins work-hardened which further resists these problems. Then, outside of that hard shell, they were placed inside columns of concrete to further add compressive strength (concrete is extremely hard in compression) and thermal insulation.

The interesting thing about compressive strength is that it's harder to compress something like steel than it is to bend it. On top of that, a great amount of compression can occur before the yield point is reached (where the beam would fail in this scenario).

Combine those facts with the fact that the entire building could have been supported and even caught from falling a 100' above on less than half the number of beams and we get some interesting conclusions. The majority (like 80%) of the beams would have had to all reach their softening (working) temperature (not their 90% loss of bending strength) all at the same time. Heat 20% and then let them cool while you heat another 20% and that's not enough. Even if you cleaned all the concrete shell from 80% of the beams and then heated them to 1200 deg F simultaneously, the other remaining beams would have held them in place and forced them to hold the weight up to the working temperature of steel. Depending on what type of steel it was, that could be 2200-2600 deg F.

THEN... we have the other problem of the floors below still remaining in tact. If you had a martian disintegration gun and could vanish floors 50-80, allowing 80-110 to drop down on floor 50, you would only get a few floors of damage. The lower 45 or so floors would be left holding the wreckage nearly 500' off the ground. (Assuming they didn't fall off to the side.)

And lastly, assuming that the beams were all completely exposed, all heated to 2500 deg F and all failed simultaneously, there is still no way the entire building would fall at free-fall speed or into it's own footprint. Each floor it encountered on it's way down would present it's own unique set of circumstances increasing the odds that it will be stopped, it will careen off to one side or that it will demolish one of the falling floors from above. Should any of those occur on even one floor, we could not possibly get the scenario we did.

In short, ALL of the beams must have been demo'd simultaneously (per floor) and for nearly all the vertical height of the tower and that REQUIRES nano-thermite (barring some other unknown explosive just like it). The existence of molten steel and the 6 week's duration of that state also prove it. There is zero doubt left about it.