“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.)
“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.)
"I am a bit of a "know it all." I was rated high for that in my performance reviews at work. "
It shows.
"But what I do know is solid;"
No. You are wrong, but you are highly confident in your ignorance.
"You, on the other hand, have no credentials"
You do not know this for a fact, yet you project this as a conclusion with great confidence. You are ignorant.
" and use this opportunity to throw insults at me."
Because it is a language you understand.
"The stupid and misguided ones are the Flat-Earthers, Moon-Hoaxers, space travel deniers, chemtrail hawkers, and orbiting DEW believers."
Are you evaluating information based upon information, or are you evaluating information within the filter of your prejudice and ignorance?
Don't bother, it was a rhetorical question.