It took a long time for WTC7 to collapse and it resulted from an internal fire that consumed the non-structural elements of the building and weakened the steel far below its margins of safety. Carbonaceous fuels are easily hot enough to melt steel (what do you suppose we use for blast furnaces?). Nuclear sources are simple loony fantasy.
“ Carbonaceous fuels “ that’s a new one to add to the pile of revisionist bullshit.
You realize wtc 7 was not hit by a plane did not have hydrocarbons and the “office fires” were consuming standard office equipment (desks, chairs, carpets, paper, etc).
It had building materials. No building is all steel and glass. Desks, chairs, carpets, paper, etc., are all carbonaceous (carbon-containing) fuels---which is why I did not say "hydrocarbons.". You don't have to get close to the melting point before structural steel loses nearly all its strength.
How do you think we get molten steel in the first place? Burning carbonaceous fuels (e.g., coke in blast furnaces). The flame temperature is much higher than the melting point. We burn kerosene in gas turbine engines all the time and it is impossible to make the engines from steel, as it would not withstand the combustion temperature. I don't regard this as a mystery at all, and if you think it is, you are not listening to the relevant facts.
A pile that burned for weeks? What's mysterious about that? You are aware that there are coal mines that have been burning for 60 years? Smoldering piles of wreckage are not uncommon.
I did take a peek, but the conclusive videos at the opening page were nothing of the sort. And the quotations from the principals was an immediate flag of prejudice animating their approach.
It took a long time for WTC7 to collapse and it resulted from an internal fire that consumed the non-structural elements of the building and weakened the steel far below its margins of safety. Carbonaceous fuels are easily hot enough to melt steel (what do you suppose we use for blast furnaces?). Nuclear sources are simple loony fantasy.
“ Carbonaceous fuels “ that’s a new one to add to the pile of revisionist bullshit.
You realize wtc 7 was not hit by a plane did not have hydrocarbons and the “office fires” were consuming standard office equipment (desks, chairs, carpets, paper, etc).
It had building materials. No building is all steel and glass. Desks, chairs, carpets, paper, etc., are all carbonaceous (carbon-containing) fuels---which is why I did not say "hydrocarbons.". You don't have to get close to the melting point before structural steel loses nearly all its strength.
Molten steel as reported.
Does the magic of carbonaceous bullshit explain molten aka LIQUID steel? What about a pile that continued to burn for weeks following 911?
How do you think we get molten steel in the first place? Burning carbonaceous fuels (e.g., coke in blast furnaces). The flame temperature is much higher than the melting point. We burn kerosene in gas turbine engines all the time and it is impossible to make the engines from steel, as it would not withstand the combustion temperature. I don't regard this as a mystery at all, and if you think it is, you are not listening to the relevant facts.
A pile that burned for weeks? What's mysterious about that? You are aware that there are coal mines that have been burning for 60 years? Smoldering piles of wreckage are not uncommon.
If you are honestly interested this is a site with factual information.
https://www.ae911truth.org/
I did take a peek, but the conclusive videos at the opening page were nothing of the sort. And the quotations from the principals was an immediate flag of prejudice animating their approach.