My apology. Bad mental transfer. I've been laboring under a regime of very high blood pressure and it interferes with my concentration. In any case, the point was that the flame temperature of available combustibles was adequate to melt steel and produce the tiny spheres.
I don’t think so. It might have been able to heat up some small bit of steel, but look at the massive thermal mass and then compare that to the energy output of the office fires. Not nearly enough energy there.
Same goes for the amount of energy in the kerosene / jet fuel from the two planes in wtc 1 and wtc 2. Most of that fuel was burnt up on impact and while it would generate heat, that heat would be dissipated throughout the whole core and the steel skin for the towers. There is not enough energy there to do the damage we saw.
Melting is a matter of temperature. You don't have to melt all the steel in order to melt steel. How do you think we melt it in the first place? We combust carbon-based materials.
I can see that you resist paying attention. I pointed out earlier to you (I think it was you...these detached fragments of thread destroy a sense of continuity) that gravity provided essentially all the energy necessary to pull down the Towers. The jet fuel was in copious supply, over 11,000 gallons for a full load (about 70,000 pounds). This does not include an unknown amount of aluminum vapor that may have combusted at much higher flame temperature. It only takes a temperature of 1100 F to reduce the strength of structural steel to 30% of its room-temperature value.
You really don't know what you are talking about. You are waving your hands and making assertions based only on your supposition, not on any hard information. Once the column-bearing strength of a damaged floor has been reduced below the structural margin, a compressive shear collapse is immediate, propagating from column to column at about 5,940 feet/second.
We are talking about wtc 7? Where is this aluminum coming from?
My apology. Bad mental transfer. I've been laboring under a regime of very high blood pressure and it interferes with my concentration. In any case, the point was that the flame temperature of available combustibles was adequate to melt steel and produce the tiny spheres.
I don’t think so. It might have been able to heat up some small bit of steel, but look at the massive thermal mass and then compare that to the energy output of the office fires. Not nearly enough energy there.
Same goes for the amount of energy in the kerosene / jet fuel from the two planes in wtc 1 and wtc 2. Most of that fuel was burnt up on impact and while it would generate heat, that heat would be dissipated throughout the whole core and the steel skin for the towers. There is not enough energy there to do the damage we saw.
Melting is a matter of temperature. You don't have to melt all the steel in order to melt steel. How do you think we melt it in the first place? We combust carbon-based materials.
I can see that you resist paying attention. I pointed out earlier to you (I think it was you...these detached fragments of thread destroy a sense of continuity) that gravity provided essentially all the energy necessary to pull down the Towers. The jet fuel was in copious supply, over 11,000 gallons for a full load (about 70,000 pounds). This does not include an unknown amount of aluminum vapor that may have combusted at much higher flame temperature. It only takes a temperature of 1100 F to reduce the strength of structural steel to 30% of its room-temperature value.
You really don't know what you are talking about. You are waving your hands and making assertions based only on your supposition, not on any hard information. Once the column-bearing strength of a damaged floor has been reduced below the structural margin, a compressive shear collapse is immediate, propagating from column to column at about 5,940 feet/second.