No airplane fuel. So what. That was never a point.
Everything that was not steel or aluminum or glass was potentially combustible, including flooring, ceiling materials, wall, partitions, doors, as well as office furniture. The history of other fires does not disprove the existence of this one. There is always a first time for everything. The fire took a while to generate, and if it is confined, the temperatures can get very high.
As mentioned as simple fact, the burning of carbonaceous materials (wood, etc.) results in temperatures higher than the melting point of steel (wood @ 3596 F, iron @ 2800 F). The collapse would compress the air in the floor spaces and eject any molten materials by aspiration.
Nobody describes what is actually found. There would have to be aluminum oxide present. The fact that it is not mentioned is a "tell" for me that the people making the claim do not understand the chemistry of thermite. The presence of iron micro-spheres would only be evidence for the existence of molten steel, which would be resulting from the high temperature. Also, structural failure by compressive shear results in flaking of the steel from the shear surface.
Free fall. Nothing mysterious here. You have a building whose weight is supported by structural columns, based on design levels of compressive stress and safety margins of strength. A fire originates within the building, turning it into a furnace within. The strength of the steel columns will steadily drop with the increasing temperature until the strength at a given floor (it doesn't matter which one) will reach zero margin...and some column will fail in shear, which is essentially instantaneous. The compressive load will be redistributed among all the remaining columns at the speed of sound in the hot steel, taking maybe a millisecond, and then another column (or columns) would fail in shear, leading to a chain reaction that would take maybe a tenth of a second to accomplish across all the columns. And then the supported mass would descend at free fall. As it collides with floors beneath, the whole overload chain reaction would occur again in another tiny fraction of a second. Until it reaches bottom, at which time the now-unsupported walls would collapse inward. The tiny delays for the chain reaction would not be noticeable in an analysis that wouldn't have the timing resolution to notice a difference.
No squibs. Just the compression of air in the collapsing floors and its exhaust through perforations in the building walls. Blowing out dust and smoke. What else would you expect? You have to understand what is going on, in order to understand what you are seeing.
“As mentioned as simple fact, the burning of carbonaceous materials (wood, etc.) results in temperatures higher than the melting point of steel (wood @ 3596 F, iron @ 2800 F). The collapse would compress the air in the floor spaces and eject any molten materials by aspiration.”
Prove your bullshit. This is not an optimized combustion chamber. This is an open fire with black smoke indicating poor efficiency at burning its combustible materials.
“ No squibs. Just the compression of air in the collapsing floors and its exhaust through perforations in the building walls. Blowing out dust and smoke. What else would you expect? You have to understand what is going on, in order to understand what you are seeing.”
Again more revisionist bullshit. Watch the videos listen to the explosions.
Since you knew nothing about the temperatures involved, you are a poor one to carp about them. Who says efficiency is necessary? There is an 800 F margin between the two numbers. The stuff that burns will burn at the flame temperature. Even Diesel engines and gas turbines will produce soot, and they are supposedly optimized for high efficiency. You certainly can't substantiate your claim.
No squibs necessary. The video I watched of WTC7 showed a steady, undisturbed collapse with no shocks or expulsions of blast. Noise? You must be kidding. A building collapses and there would be no noise? Serious structural failures would make loud sounds. People are conditioned by bad movies to associate loud sounds with "explosions," when they be nothing of the kind.
Suppose I am. How would you convince me otherwise? It was the video you recommended.
The guy that watches a video many times---with the wrong understanding---will not be an expert. He will be an ignoramus. Way too much bias confirmation interpretation going on here.
You a bit of a know it all and not at all worth engaging with. You should know, I think you are stupid and misguided, that’s if you are not here as cognitive infiltration.
I am a bit of a "know it all." I was rated high for that in my performance reviews at work. But what I do know is solid; I don't much butt in when the matter is not my strength. You, on the other hand, have no credentials and use this opportunity to throw insults at me. The stupid and misguided ones are the Flat-Earthers, Moon-Hoaxers, space travel deniers, chemtrail hawkers, and orbiting DEW believers. (But on the last point, stay tuned. The Chinese have announced they plan to orbit a 1 MW laser next year, and I will be very interested to see if and how they pull it off.)
No plane. So what. That was never a point.
No airplane fuel. So what. That was never a point.
Everything that was not steel or aluminum or glass was potentially combustible, including flooring, ceiling materials, wall, partitions, doors, as well as office furniture. The history of other fires does not disprove the existence of this one. There is always a first time for everything. The fire took a while to generate, and if it is confined, the temperatures can get very high.
As mentioned as simple fact, the burning of carbonaceous materials (wood, etc.) results in temperatures higher than the melting point of steel (wood @ 3596 F, iron @ 2800 F). The collapse would compress the air in the floor spaces and eject any molten materials by aspiration.
Nobody describes what is actually found. There would have to be aluminum oxide present. The fact that it is not mentioned is a "tell" for me that the people making the claim do not understand the chemistry of thermite. The presence of iron micro-spheres would only be evidence for the existence of molten steel, which would be resulting from the high temperature. Also, structural failure by compressive shear results in flaking of the steel from the shear surface.
Free fall. Nothing mysterious here. You have a building whose weight is supported by structural columns, based on design levels of compressive stress and safety margins of strength. A fire originates within the building, turning it into a furnace within. The strength of the steel columns will steadily drop with the increasing temperature until the strength at a given floor (it doesn't matter which one) will reach zero margin...and some column will fail in shear, which is essentially instantaneous. The compressive load will be redistributed among all the remaining columns at the speed of sound in the hot steel, taking maybe a millisecond, and then another column (or columns) would fail in shear, leading to a chain reaction that would take maybe a tenth of a second to accomplish across all the columns. And then the supported mass would descend at free fall. As it collides with floors beneath, the whole overload chain reaction would occur again in another tiny fraction of a second. Until it reaches bottom, at which time the now-unsupported walls would collapse inward. The tiny delays for the chain reaction would not be noticeable in an analysis that wouldn't have the timing resolution to notice a difference.
No squibs. Just the compression of air in the collapsing floors and its exhaust through perforations in the building walls. Blowing out dust and smoke. What else would you expect? You have to understand what is going on, in order to understand what you are seeing.
“As mentioned as simple fact, the burning of carbonaceous materials (wood, etc.) results in temperatures higher than the melting point of steel (wood @ 3596 F, iron @ 2800 F). The collapse would compress the air in the floor spaces and eject any molten materials by aspiration.”
Prove your bullshit. This is not an optimized combustion chamber. This is an open fire with black smoke indicating poor efficiency at burning its combustible materials.
“ No squibs. Just the compression of air in the collapsing floors and its exhaust through perforations in the building walls. Blowing out dust and smoke. What else would you expect? You have to understand what is going on, in order to understand what you are seeing.”
Again more revisionist bullshit. Watch the videos listen to the explosions.
Since you knew nothing about the temperatures involved, you are a poor one to carp about them. Who says efficiency is necessary? There is an 800 F margin between the two numbers. The stuff that burns will burn at the flame temperature. Even Diesel engines and gas turbines will produce soot, and they are supposedly optimized for high efficiency. You certainly can't substantiate your claim.
No squibs necessary. The video I watched of WTC7 showed a steady, undisturbed collapse with no shocks or expulsions of blast. Noise? You must be kidding. A building collapses and there would be no noise? Serious structural failures would make loud sounds. People are conditioned by bad movies to associate loud sounds with "explosions," when they be nothing of the kind.
“The video I watched of WTC7 showed a steady, undisturbed collapse with no shocks or expulsions of blast.“
Hey everyone!!! The guy that watched one video once is an expert.
Suppose I am. How would you convince me otherwise? It was the video you recommended.
The guy that watches a video many times---with the wrong understanding---will not be an expert. He will be an ignoramus. Way too much bias confirmation interpretation going on here.
Took a quick look at your post history.
You a bit of a know it all and not at all worth engaging with. You should know, I think you are stupid and misguided, that’s if you are not here as cognitive infiltration.
I am a bit of a "know it all." I was rated high for that in my performance reviews at work. But what I do know is solid; I don't much butt in when the matter is not my strength. You, on the other hand, have no credentials and use this opportunity to throw insults at me. The stupid and misguided ones are the Flat-Earthers, Moon-Hoaxers, space travel deniers, chemtrail hawkers, and orbiting DEW believers. (But on the last point, stay tuned. The Chinese have announced they plan to orbit a 1 MW laser next year, and I will be very interested to see if and how they pull it off.)