Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What is the melting point of steel beams in relation to jet fuel temperatures?
Executive summary
Available reporting consistently shows that common structural steels melt at temperatures roughly 1,370–1,510 °C (2,500–2,750 °F) while uncontrolled jet-fuel fires typically reach a few hundred to about 1,500 °F (≈430–815 °C) — well below steel’s melting point [1] [2] [3]. However, engineers and investigators stress that steel loses strength long before melting — for example, significant strength loss occurs near 1,000–1,200 °F (≈538–650 °C), so fires fueled by jet fuel plus building contents can weaken beams enough to cause collapse without any melting [4] [5].
1. Melting point numbers: what “steel” means and the raw comparison
Different steel alloys and carbon contents have different melting ranges; many public sources quote a general melting range around 1,370–1,510 °C (2,500–2,750 °F) as representative for structural steels [6] [3]. By contrast, popular and technical accounts place jet-fuel fire temperatures in uncontrolled building fires roughly between ~800 and 1,500 °F (≈426–815 °C) or quote ambient burn temperatures nearer 1,030 °C (1,890 °F) depending on measurement context — but mainstream debunking of the “jet fuel melts steel” slogan stresses that those jet-fuel temperatures are below steel’s melting point [2] [1].
2. Why “melting” is the wrong metric for structural failure
Engineering reporting and investigations emphasize that steel does not need to melt to fail. Structural steel loses a large fraction of its load-bearing strength at far lower temperatures: for example, MIT’s Thomas Eagar and others note steel loses roughly half its strength by about 1,200 °F (≈650 °C) and designers consider temperatures around 400–550 °C critical for reduced capacity [4] [6] [5]. Thus a fire that never reaches steel’s melting point can still produce deformation, sagging, and connection failure that lead to collapse [4] [7].
3. What investigators said about the World Trade Center fires (context often cited in the debate)
Post-9/11 investigations (summarized by outlets like Popular Mechanics and Scientific American) explain that jet fuel was the ignition source but that burning office contents sustained and spread fires, producing pockets of elevated temperatures (NIST and consulted engineers cited pockets near 1,800 °F in some accounts), and that loss of fireproofing and impact damage left steel more vulnerable — all factors that permitted weakening without wholesale melting [2] [4] [3]. Those reports are used to counter the claim that “no melted steel means no fire-driven collapse” [2].
4. Disagreement in public sources and common inaccuracies
Publicly circulated numbers vary: some technical posts and forums list jet fuel flames as reaching very high numbers (e.g., claims of >2,000 °C on informal Q&A sites), while mainstream engineering and investigative pieces put jet-fuel fire temperatures far lower [8] [2]. Several popular explanations repeat the shorthand “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams,” which is accurate about melting but misleading if taken to imply fires couldn’t have caused collapse because they didn’t liquefy steel — investigators explicitly rebut that leap [2] [3].
5. Practical demonstrations and their limits
Demonstrations and articles (e.g., metalworker experiments, industry write-ups) show that forgers heat steel to temperatures above typical hydrocarbon flames to reshape it, and that even heating several hundred degrees above flame temperatures can produce significant weakening — useful to illustrate that melting isn’t required, but laboratory/forge setups differ from complex building fires in scale, duration, insulation, and oxygen supply [9] [7]. Reports caution against overinterpreting small-scale demonstrations without accounting for real-world variables such as insulation, load redistribution, and construction details [7] [9].
6. Bottom line for the question asked
Available reporting shows: (a) structural steel’s melting point is much higher than the usual temperatures quoted for jet-fuel fires [1] [3]; (b) steel loses strength at far lower temperatures (around 1,000–1,200 °F / 538–650 °C), and fires involving jet fuel plus office combustibles can reach temperatures that cause dangerous weakening and failure [4] [5]. Claims that focus solely on melting are therefore technically correct but incomplete and have been repeatedly criticized in investigative and engineering literature for ignoring strength loss and fire dynamics [2] [4].
Limitations: available sources here are a mix of engineering summaries, popular media, and Q&A/forum posts; they agree on the key point that melting isn’t necessary for collapse but differ in some temperature figures and contexts [8] [1] [2].