Why cant 9/11 conspiracy theorists understand simple physics?

There are countless examples of solvent fires, where the temperature reached perhaps 1400 F to 1700 F (well below the melting point of structural steel), where the result includes warped tank walls, damaged and even collapsed support structures, damaged and leaking pipes, etc. Structural steel tank supports and building columns are insulated in various ways to minimize heat damage in the event of a fire; if the steel had to melt in order to cause a problem, insurance costs, construction costs, and maintenance costs on steel structures and steel vessels would be a lot cheaper, and we wouldn't fear fires nearly so much as we do. Anyone arguing that burning jet fuel could not have caused that much damage is ignorant of structural materials, chemical fires and overall strength of materials, regardless of what credentials they claim.

Burning jet fuel would be unlikely to melt steel into a liquid pool, but with a maximum burning temperature of 1796 °F, it would easily soften the steel to the point that a loaded steel structure would fail. Your interpretation of the kinetic energy of the plane is a bit removed from physics, even though you are using some physics terms. The crash of the plane would certainly spread fuel quickly (think of a water balloon hitting something), but the conversion of the kinetic energy of the moving fuel into heat would not superheat the liquid into a gas.

It would raise the temperature only a few degrees. The combustion of the fuel would, however, supply plenty of heat. Here's a quick calculation, using water, which has a similar density and compressibiltiy to liquid jet fuel: A 767 cruises at about mach 0.8, which is 272 meters per second.

A kilogram of water moving that fast will have 36,992 Joules of energy (1/2 M v squared). I'll round that to 37 kilojoules. I'll cheat and use google to convert that to kilocalories (type: 37 kilojoules in kilocalories).

8.8 kilocalories. The specific heat of water is 1 calorie per gram, or 1 kilocalories per kilogram. That's the heat required to heat something by 1 degree C.

So, if all of the kinetic energy of that water gets turned into heat and all of that heat goes into heating the water, the water will be almost 9 C warmer after the crash. There are a few assumptions here. I'm assuming that all of the energy turns into heat and all of the heat goes to heating the water.

To whatever extent my assumption is wrong, that means the water gets heated less. I'm also assuming that jet fuel and water have similar specific heats and densities. Even if they are different by a little bit, that isn't going to turn 9C into 9,000C.

Finally, I did this calculation for one kilogram. Of course there was more fuel than that, but the weights cancel each other out. Twice as much liquid means twice as much energy, but then you need twice as much energy to raise the liquid the same number of degrees.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.